By Doug Berger

I wanted to take the opportunity to write an essay in rebuttal to an essay written by Jane Haddam that was posted on her official website in 2003.

Jane is a published author of several mystery novels and freelance articles for various mainstream magazines.

I have had the pleasure of discussing the points made in her essay on an e-mail list called “sechum” at Yahoo Groups, on which we both participated. We debated and argued the points and I think it is healthy for Humanists to read reasoned critical essays about Humanism.

I really recommend you read her essay in full so that my thoughts don’t appear like I am taking things out of context.

Here is the link: http://www.janehaddam.com/chd/notahumanist.html

The main thrust of her essay is that she takes an exception with the Humanism being expressed by the main national groups, the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Council of Secular Humanism (CSH), on their website and in their official magazines. She feels that the groups exclude people with political philosophies such as her’s. Specifically she sees the magazines and websites promoting what she calls a “left-liberal” political agenda.

I first heard the word “left-liberal” in a posting from Jane on the e-mail list. She claimed that liberal publications use the term to separate themselves from Clinton Liberals who like former President Clinton are more centrists then classic Liberals.

In my research, most of the articles and essays using “left-liberal” came from obviously conservative websites and publications. I found one reference on a liberal website but the word was used more as sarcastic remark like when men say “Sorry, I’m just a pig” to women they insulted.

My conclusion is that “left-liberal” is used as a pejorative like “Liberal” is when used by people who don’t like Liberal politics. It is not just an alternative label as Jane claims.

Aside from that point, I feel Jane makes some points that Humanists should examine, but where I disagree with her is her insistence that a particular political viewpoint on an issue is an official view of all Humanists. I don’t agree that the lack of any one viewpoint from any magazine articles or books indicates anything about what the Humanist consensus is or what it should be. The magazines and books publish viewpoints that should, if anything, be rooted somewhere in the Humanist philosophy.

I also differ with Jane on what the Humanist movement should be about. She claims we should just be secular - dealing with only protecting the rights of secular people.

I don’t believe the Humanist movement will grow if we ignore our historic political roots. I don’t think that a majority of Americans would become Humanists if we just focus only on secularism or at worst, Humanism will become so generic it won’t stand for much of anything.

“At base, however, we’re still left with a situation where a secular American who believes, as most Americans do, that neither rights nor morals are entirely social constructs must put those convictions aside to join a humanist organization. The same is the case for Americans who are supporters of free market philosophies, or even modified free market philosophies. In fact, in some cases, secular Americans who hold views like that have to learn to keep their mouths shut.”

Jane brings up an interesting point about the nature of groups. I don’t feel that it is only limited to Humanist groups. Even in groups committed to a particular political position, some in the group will not have all their viewpoints expressed in the group. Look at the two major political parties in the US. You have a national platform, calling for specific action on some issues. These platforms were developed by the leadership of the party. I know that some of the planks in those platforms don’t make all Democrats or all Republicans happy. Those individuals choose to belong to the party because they find enough issues to support.

Organized Humanism doesn’t work exactly like a political party. We don’t have a leadership developing a platform. We do have more than one set of general overlapping principles that one can adopt if they find they agree substantially with them but we as a group developed those principles together.

I have observed some Humanists berating someone who had a different particular political viewpoint and I don’t agree that is the right thing to do. Humanists do and should argue and debate those issues rationally with all viewpoints included.

“If the secular movement wants to grow, it has to be a secular movement, not a left-liberal movement that tacks on secularism. That means not only making sure that the house organs publish more than one point of view when they address political questions, but that they spend more time concentrating on secularism than they do on politics. It also means doing something about the nearly monolithic cultural climate in secular groups and on secular discussion forums.”

I do agree with Jane that the national groups, the magazines they publish, and even some Humanists I have met do give the impression that one must be a liberal to be a Humanist. I agree that at least in the AHA, it does seem it is still 1968 and Humanists are suppose to battle “the man” and its oppression etc…

Where I do disagree with Jane is her insistence that Humanism should only be about the rights of secularists.

If I thought that was true I would jump ship and go back to calling myself an Atheist.

Humanism is a defined philosophy that incorporates reason, science, and logic to try and solve human problems. Humanists reject any supernaturalism for anything from morals to solutions to problems.

Humanism should include as many viewpoints on issues of interest to us. Humanist principles do not advocate and should not advocate one particular political viewpoint over all others unless that one viewpoint is seen as the best way to address the problem or issue.

I think the reason that Jane feels she doesn’t fit into Humanism and why she claims that Humanist thought is too liberal is because the Humanist philosophy, as a whole, is “left” of center in the political spectrum. A majority of Humanists probably are tentative liberals even if they shy away from the label as many of us shy away from the Atheist label.

As another list participant put it, if a Humanist who is a conservative wants to make an argument of an issue from their perspective then they should. The fact that hasn’t happened often enough is because conservatives are a minority within Humanism not because the principles dictate it.

Jane then makes the following point:

“I have no idea why a “[c]ommitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry…in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions,” as CSH’s What is Secular Humanism page puts it, should lead inevitably to support for assisted suicide or the conviction that there is no objective basis for morality–if you ask me, it should lead straight to the opposite conclusions–but I do know that I am not willing to support organizations that promote policies I think are wrong.”

I have been following the assisted suicide debate in the media and on some of the Humanism e-mail lists. The main arguments against assisted suicide have been based on religious morals not secular ones. Religionists believe that suicide is a sin and therefore should be against the law. Most Humanists believe that it is the person involved who should make the decision and the state should stay out of it. We think of it as a rights issue not a moral question much like most of us support a woman’s right to an abortion even if some of us, like myself, don’t like abortion.

There is another non-religious argument against assisted suicide that involves the potential of abuse. Some people feel that a terminally ill person could be manipulated to ask for assisted suicide or it could be used to free up health resources by unscrupulous health care people.

The question of an objective morality is one of those debates that just doesn’t seem to end because the answer isn’t clear. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Jane feels very strongly that there is an objective morality and she finds opposite views repugnant.

Individual Humanist views on those issues do differ but the public face (the magazines, websites, and books) has tended to express one particular viewpoint. I believe that other viewpoints should be published as long as those viewpoints are drawn from Humanist principles.

Someone, outside the Humanist movement, could draw the incorrect impression that what comes from the National groups is the “official” view of all Humanists. We should be emphasizing the fact that the Humanist consensus isn’t dictated from Headquarters.

“Second, both magazines, and their parent organizations, redefine several philosophical issues as conflicts between “church” and “state.” That practice extends to many of the smaller organizations as well, like the Institute for First American Studies. Abortion and euthanasia are presented as if no one could ever object to either if they didn’t believe in God. Questions about funding abortion through Medicaid or providing condoms to students in public schools turn on presenting the “pro” case as secular and the “con” as purely religious.”

While I do agree we need to be careful which issues we define into a conflict between church and state, unfortunately she mentions the three issues that in fact are a conflict of church vs. state. The pro side is based on a secular argument and the con side is based on God’s law.

Arguments from secularists against abortion, euthanasia, and condom handouts have been made but the Humanist consensus on those issues happens to be one based on the conflict between church and state. That is how the debate in the public is framed. Since the “con” arguments are based on religious or subjective tastes the argument becomes part of the “Church & State” debate.

“Third, both major organizations–and most of the small ones–hold fast to a philosophical and scientific paradigm that is out of date anywhere else on the planet. Science may have abandoned the blank slate and environmental determinism decades ago, but organized humanism still loves them both. That love has consequences. It means that organized humanism is still promoting “relativism” in morality, not merely by rejecting absolutism–which would make sense–but by denying that morals have any objective basis at all. It means that organized humanism denies any basis for political and civil rights except the whim of the society that chooses to grant them. In addition, most importantly, it means that organized humanism is still fatally attracted to social engineering. If environment is everything, and rights don’t exist except when society decides to give them to you, it makes sense to push for the control of children and their upbringing and education. That’s how you “effect change” for “the good of society.”"

The issues she mentions in the quote above are issues that we Humanists debate a lot in person and on e-mail lists. Not all Humanists hold the same view on those issues. We don’t march in lock step with each other. In fact, those issues above aren’t even mentioned specifically in the various principles of Humanism printed by the AHA and CSH.

Viewpoints on both sides of the argument could be derived from the principles but these issues are political issues and in politics, you can have a wide range of thought.

“Organized humanism” doesn’t love the “blank slate” and “environmental determinism.” “Organized Humanism” isn’t promoting “relativism” or believing civil rights only exist on the whim of society. “Organized Humanism” is not fatally attracted to social engineering. Do some individual Humanists express those views? Sure. However the national groups don’t hold any of those positions nor would I want them to.

Again Jane makes the mistake in thinking that the national groups dictate the Humanist consensus or sanctions those views by publishing articles about them in their magazines.

I would go so far as to say that “Organized Humanism” doesn’t exist. Belonging to a group is not required to be a Humanist. There is no test or allegiance required. There is no political test either.

To be a Humanist all you need to do is read the principles. If you find you agree substantially with them then you are a Humanist.

As Jane found from personal experience, just because someone says they are a Humanist doesn’t mean they will act like one all the time.

I have met some Humanists who love the free market and think that Humanism should only be about protecting individual rights. They consider themselves Humanists because Humanists favor individual rights.

On the other hand I know some Humanists who are more liberal than I am. They are against war ‘period’. They believe we would be better off as a socialist state.

I can tell you that such ultra-liberalism is not reflected by a majority of Humanists I know or talk to. Using Jane’s arguments, one could complain that Humanism is too conservative since you don’t read any articles about building communes.

The point is that Humanism is not just about politics or only about one issue like rights. Humanism is a philosophy of life that helps find human answers to human problems in a rational way without the need for a God.

I think Jane’s essay expresses some problems with the public face of Humanism that should be looked at and changed if necessary. However, I don’t agree that organized Humanism is a political organization first, secular as an afterthought.

I don’t believe that non-Liberal viewpoints are actively excluded. Those viewpoints are a minority of minority philosophy. That doesn’t mean those ideas are invalid, only that such ideas are not supported by the same number of Humanists who support the opposite viewpoint. If you have many more people holding the same views then it naturally will be expressed in print.

Non-liberal viewpoints are needed to fill out our search for a consensus and they deserve the same respect we give Liberal ideas. We may not agree with them but we do need to listen.

Written on September 16, 2001

By Doug Berger

A big black smoking hole in one of the World Trade Center towers was the first scene I saw at 8:55 am on Tuesday September 11, 2001. Thick black smoke poured into the air. The reporters said a plane had crashed into the tower. At 9:03 am I witnessed, live on TV, a second jet come into view and plow into the other tower with a resultant explosion as thousands of pounds of fuel ignited.

“What the f***?” I remember saying while the commentators on the morning show were asking if they just saw what they just saw. They reran the video and yes it was a second jet crashing into the other tower.

As news people scrambled to get the story I scrambled to understand what had just happened. Both towers, symbols of New York, were on fire. I felt for the people in the tower, on the planes, and on the ground. What happened? Why did it happen? I did know that it was not an accident. Then President Bush made a statement while on a visit to Florida before getting ready to head back to Washington DC.

At 9:40 am reports came in that a plane had crashed into the Pentagon in Washington. The news showed video of the black smoke rolling up from the building. Now I was num. I really didn’t know what was going on or what to do. The news reported that all airports in New York and Washington were now closed.

Less than an hour later I saw, live on TV, first one then the other tower collapsing to the ground. All 1,000 feet of steel, glass, and cement cascaded to the ground. Another report came in of another passenger jet crashing in Pennsylvania. Now I was sick.

In a little more than an hour we lost more people in a series of connected events than had been lost in similar tragic events of the past.

I was scared at the possibility that more was to come and searched out someone to talk to so I called my mom. I told her I was fine and she said she was O.K. She is a travel agent and she was really busy at the time since the FAA had shut down all the air traffic in the country.

I stayed glue to my TV for the rest of the day only sleeping when my mind and body just gave out.

It has been a 5 days since September 11 and I am still nervous. On Friday I was downtown getting my paycheck and heard a jet flying low and looked up hoping it wasn’t another attack.

Also on Friday our President called for a National Day of Prayer, as if only believers need to gather with others for solace. Instead I met with a friend in a local park for a Toast of Remembrance to the victims as church bells rang in town.

Later in the day I got mad when I heard Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, evangelical Christian leaders, claim that because of abortionists, gays, pagan, and secularists making God mad, God removed some kind of protective cloak He supposedly put around the US since its founding 200 plus years ago. They said we all need to do is get back to God.

I was mad because they were blaming people like me for the causing the attack and that people like them seem to use these tragic events as way of making more money.

I said to myself that any God who would allow over 5,000 people to die at one time is really not worth following. If we accept what Falwell and Robertson said as true then we must also accept that the Islamic extremists who planned and executed the attack had God’s blessing. They went to Heaven according to their beliefs. I was even mad when Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, who I thought was more moderate than Robertson et al., said on two networks that we all need to find Jesus and go back to Him.

I am mad by these kind of comments because they fail to include non-believers and because this tragic event was a political statement mixed with religion. This event is a prime example of the dangers of mixing religion and politics and I felt the comments were leading us down the same road the terrorists used to justify their attack. If we did what Falwell, Robertson, and Graham suggested we would be no better than the terrorists.

To be frank, the religion of the victims and the terrorists would not have caused or prevented the event. It was a political statement and the only thing that mattered was the nationality of the victims and the symbols of the targets. This happened in the US, using US airline planes, and attacking the symbols of the US and the US Government. The terrorists seemed to have been members of a group that hates the US Government and its policies in the region of their homeland.

Through these days I wondered what it all means and after some reflection I believe that I can’t give up my Humanist principles because I am angry and sad or that I am nervous and uncertain about the future. It would be extremely easy to discard my Humanism and go to church and start praying to God again. But would that protect me or my fellow citizens from future harm. I know it won’t. Religion isn’t just part of the problem. We have cultural and economic intolerance. It seems people find many reasons to kill or harm other people simply because they are not like them or they feel they have been harmed in some way. Inequality breeds the intolerance and can lead to violence as we saw on September 11th. Some people become so desperate that they act out in a nasty violent way. They have nothing to lose.

What happened on Tuesday September 11th is not much different than all the other days we live. We don’t know if we will live anymore than we know if we will die. We could step off a curb and get killed by a bus or we could be the victim of a murder. An asteroid could plow into the earth tomorrow. Someone who works out everyday dies while someone who is a couch potato lives to be 100. Going to church or praying, or not, will not have any effect on those events.

We need to live the life we have the best we can with the knowledge that the day could be our last. It is O.K. to feel sad or uncertain or any other of the emotions I know we are all feeling right now, but we know we must move on. We can’t let these events paralyze us.

What about the future?

Our elected leadership, along with a large group of citizens, are talking revenge. I know I considered it myself hours after the event. It is a natural knee-jerk reaction. In this country, that encourages revenge for criminals by using capital punishment, it didn’t surprise me that the only response seems to be revenge.

I would much rather see justice. We have one of the greatest legal systems in the world and our civilization is based on laws created by the members of society. We need to find all those who helped support and finance these attacks and bring them to justice. The terrorists in the attack died and their supporters want to die too, so killing them through military action is exactly what they want. To give them what they want would be to give into their religious beliefs.

The President has said we are at war. I ask a war with whom. War is declared through legal means. That has not happened yet and I am afraid Bush is saying the words to look tough and to justify the use of military force. His words sound eerily like those used my the extremists who have been attacking US targets for years.

I am resigned to the fact that there will be revenge using military force. I also know that if Osama bin Laden is implicated, he will not surrender quietly nor will other terrorists who may be implicated. They want to die. Martyrs are seen as heroes even if they brought about their own death from their own actions.

I also believe that Tuesday’s events didn’t have to happen. From better security at our airports to addressing the reasons people like bin Laden believe terrorism is a good way to make a point, there were human solutions available before Tuesday. We must continue to work on these solutions even in this current climate of terrorism and revenge.

The events of Tuesday September 11th prove to me that Humanism really is the better way to go. I only wish others will get the message.

by Michael Werner

Humanism, I believe, is best seen as an evolving tradition, not fixed by either ideas or practices. In the early 19th century people, were atheists and agnostics, but there was no alternative “story” or narrative. Emerson tried to come up with a naturalistic story using the concept of the “oversoul” that was at best undefined and vague. All of this was until Darwin?s story. In the late 20th century we see elements of modern humanism evolving in the Free Religious Association where Emerson who had been a Unitarian minister, Felix Adler, founder of the Ethical Cultural Movement and a number of religious liberals and philosophers joined together. Also, we had the Free Thought Movement that was intensively antireligious. In the beginning of the 20TH century, quite independently, many sought to redefine and reinterpret religion in light of the best in reason and science. One thing that was becoming clear is that the functional aspects of religion seemed more important in peoples actual lives than the ideological ones. Functional aspects included such things as building of community, celebrating life passages such as birth, death and marriage, and certainly providing youth with ethical education. Getting religion to evolve became more important than rejecting it.

Two Unitarian ministers, John Dietrich and Curtis Reese met each other and found out that they were both preaching the same thing. Dietrich called his philosophy “Humanism” and that the word caught on as they were both widely known and influential. The Midwest in particular became a hotbed of humanism while at the same time in academia, the University of Chicago and Columbia University had several who aligned themselves with this new holistic, integrated naturalistic view. Remember things were a lot smaller then and all these people all knew each other or their writings.

In 1933 the country was in bad economic shape and humanists were both concerned for the future of humanism and the country as a whole. Thus was born the Humanist Manifesto. Its a product of its time being quite sexist in its language (but not its intent) and leaning towards socialism. (Remember that capitalism had failed miserably at that point). Still, it is a brilliant, clear, succinct document of where humanism had evolved to at that time. It was written primary by Sellers a University of Michigan philosopher . Half the signers were religious (Unitarian ministers and one Universalist minister) and the other half were educators and social activists. See the Humanists Manifesto I as its now known at: http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

During the forties and fifties humanism grew tremendously in particular in the Unitarian church and Ethical Culture. Edwin Wilson, a Unitarian minister, started a magazine called the Humanist that later evolved into a full-blown organization called the American Humanist Association. One thing they learned from the Free Religious Association experience was that if you don?t have a strong organizational element, humanism will not advance or be able to effectively represent its views in a theistically dominated society. The AHA became a very effective voice for humanism representing all nontheistic people whether they chose to belong to one of the many new humanist societies/churches/fellowships or whether they chose to live a non religious community life. It sought to not be just a bunch of atheists, but to promote a positive ethical life stance where the dignity of each human being was affirmed using the best tools of reason, science and compassion.

For me, one of the geniuses of 20th century humanism has been the blending of the Enlightenment and Romantic traditions realizing that we are not fully human unless we see ourselves as both thinking and feeling, neglecting neither heart nor head. As the great humanist Bertrand Russell said, “The good life is one informed by reason and motivated by compassion.”

There always has been an uneasy truce between those guardians of rationality and those asking for a humanism of heart and action. I have been proud to have been associated with many with both heart and head. Still, we all bring different skills and focus to our lives. All types of humanism?s with adjectives evolved; ethical, scientific, religious, secular, rationalistic. I personally have a problem with hyphenated humanism because I don?t think it is not in the spirit of humanism to be narrow. Narrowing humanism generally represents not different ideologies as much as a reflection of different personality “styles.” The more rationalistic gravitate toward rationalism as humanism, the more social activists contend that it is action that counts, seculars tend to be more inclined to be loners and noncommunitarian etc. Many cannot see these merely reflect their own biases rather that the way the world is or should be.

Paul Kurtz was the editor of the Humanist magazine and reflecting his style moved the magazine more toward the pole of rationalistic philosophy. (this was after a period before that emphasized the human potential movement including Maslow, Fromm, and social action such as the civil rights movement etc.) Paul Kurtz is a very effective promoter, intellectual, hard worker and was very successful. During this time the Friends of Religious Humanism was formed as they thought they were being neglected in humanism. Around 1978 in a bid for more power he quit/got fired depending on who you listen to Remember that the AHA is a member operated organization with an elected board from its members.

Paul then started his own organization/magazine with a self perpetuating board. This has allowed him to move quickly without the burden and messiness of democracy. He defined religious humanists along side the pope which they are not. (The AHA once did a poll and not one of those members defining themselves as a religious humanists believed in a deity). This positioning of secular humanists as the “true” humanists was a effective marketing maneuver to, as he has said in public, “Bury the AHA”. But, it neglects the history, traditions, and the fact that there are more organizational humanists in the Unitarian denomination than in any other group. Free Inquiry focuses on a rationalistic and almost libertarian, humanism that especially meets the needs of the “comeouter” and has done a good job on that focus. But, I would offer, is a narrow and incomplete and sometimes outdated form of humanism. Still, by focusing on the philosophical aspects he has done a clear and thorough job on that focus.

At this point, despite appearances, all humanist organizations live hand to mouth. There are others including Humanistic Judaism, the Humanist Institute, Ethical Culture, North American Committee on Humanism, Friends of Religious Humanism, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Each has its own strengths, positioning and focus. I think each does a good job on its focus, but all give only one image of a larger picture.

Humanism today is in fact more fragmented than ever. Many Unitarians have rejected humanism for they see it as “head only” and just a bunch of “angry, antisocial, old white men”. This is in part due to the influence of Free Inquiry. The new generation of humanists there are emphasizing toleration, and effecting real change in peoples lives. Humanism is decline at the present in Unitarian Universalist circles, but there is hope with some of the newer humanists there. Ethical culture has done a good job with their credo of “Deed before Creed” and have long been a potent source of social action. The Religious Humanism magazine represents some of the most advanced thinking in humanism. The Humanist Institute trains a next generation of humanist leaders in a cross disciplinary way. The book they produce yearly takes on a difficult topic with the faculty writing contrasting essays. The AHA continues to try to be an umbrella organization for all types of humanists. Humanistic Judaism is important for those naturalistic Jews who want to keep and learn more of their cultural heritage.

Humanism in the 21st century will have to evolve or die. We are caught in cultural paradox in a neoromantic postmodern age where we have to at the same time stand up for reason and science and at the same time evolve out of the old rationalism. It is in a humbler and more encompassing humanism that we have hope that humanism will survive and indeed flourish.

©2000 Michael Werner

---

Michael Werner is a former president of the American Humanist Association.